Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

Japan's Defense Ministry hosts Singapore Airshow display for 1st time

26 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

There wasn't much of a market for Japanese cars or cameras at one time either. Only time will tell is right.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Further gutting of Article 9.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

Further gutting of Article 9.

Article 9 has turned into a farce really. This was the goal of Abe all along.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

KabukiloverToday 06:13 pm JST

Further gutting of Article 9.

> YubaruToday 06:34 pm JST

Article 9 has turned into a farce really. This was the goal of Abe all along.

Article 9 says absolutely nothing about defense exports. Perhaps you haven't read it.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Nowhere does Article 9 does it prohibit Japan from manufacturing or exporting weapons.

"Article 9. 

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Why let Iran and North Korea do it and not sell to whoever needs this hardware?

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Article 9 was imposed by the US after Japan's defeat of WWII. It was imposed with the horrors of Japan's war in immediate memory.

Nearly 100 years has passed since then. Japan is now a strong ally of the free world, a democracy with rule of law. By contrast, the US's WWII ally, China, has since become the US's number 1 competitor/enemy/challenge and Japan is now the US's number 1 friend/ally in the region.

Article 9 needs to be updated to reflect the times.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Japanese weapons are unwanted around the world except for the license produced ones which the originating nations need to send to Ukraine.

Since 2014, Japan had recorded single arms export, the radar to the Philippines.

Actually a new opportunity came up. Australia is looking to buy frigates, and shortlisted Japan's Mogami among four candidates.

From the outset, Mogami is the most compelling candidate of four, but the problem is that Australia just wants to take the hull and fill it with US combat systems and missiles, so the customization became a critical issue which Japan is terrible at. So if Australia buys off the shelf, then Mogami is a compelling option, but if customization is applied, not so much because of Japanese defense contractor's inflexibility.

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/news/plans-revealed-for-australia-s-future-surface-fleet

Plans revealed for Australia's future surface fleet

By Max Blenkin | Canberra | 20 February 2024

In its response to the Review, the Government said it agreed that in addition to Hunter-class frigates, optimised for undersea warfare, and upgraded Hobart-class destroyers, new general purpose frigates were needed.

“The Government will accelerate the acquisition of 11 general purpose frigates to deliver capability sooner and address the risk presented by an ageing and increasingly fragile surface combatant fleet,” it said.

Already four types of vessel have been identified as potentially meeting Australia’s needs – the German Meko A-200, an updated variant of the Anzacs, the Spanish Navantia ALFA3000 and, notably, the Japanese Mogami 30FFM and Korean Daegu class FFX Batch II and III.

These are all vessels in the 3000-plus tonnes class, significant larger than the corvettes pitched to the RAN following the Defence Strategic Review.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Arms manufacturers are the unseen cause of all the wars in the word, operating behind the scenes to instigate violent incidence that lead to public calls for retribution. It is madness on a global scale, and the planet suffers from the greed of the few.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Actually a new opportunity came up. Australia is looking to buy frigates, and shortlisted Japan's Mogami among four candidates.

From the outset, Mogami is the most compelling candidate of four, but the problem is that Australia just wants to take the hull and fill it with US combat systems and missiles, so the customization became a critical issue which Japan is terrible at. So if Australia buys off the shelf, then Mogami is a compelling option, but if customization is applied, not so much because of Japanese defense contractor's inflexibility.

Customizing the British Type 26 frigates as the Hunter Class for the RAN hasn't gone smoothly either. That is a common problem when you take a hull and superstructure designed for one suite of radars and combat systems and try to adapt it to a completely different set of radars and combat systems. The full load displacement is very nearly that of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer and a full 1,000 tons greater than their Hobart class guided missile destroyers. By comparison the Mogami class is 5,500 tons full load, closer to the traditional size and displacement of a frigate. The Hunters are larger than most destroyers.

The S-Band SPY series radars The Australians want take up a lot of superstructure volume and require enormous amounts of cooling. The Mogamis use a smaller, lighter but shorter range X band AESA radar. The Australians also want to shoot Tomahawks from them and the Mogami class doesn't carry strike length VLS cells able to accept the long canisters used for Tomahawk. The 16 VLS cells on a Mogami are designed for Vertical Launch ASROC, and anti sub weapon, and some number of cells will probably be quad packed with ESSM medium range air defense missiles (quad pack means four missiles per VLS cell).

Mogamis are more of a specialized ASW frigate with some self defense capability against aircraft and missiles short of area defense, and many in naval circles consider them to be the best such ships in the world. Their operations center is extremely innovative.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The design decision for Australia's new General Purpose Frigate program is still a year away so Samit has sort of shot his wad prematurely. The below article is current as of five days ago. The Mogami class has not been ruled out.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval/13646-australia-commits-to-modern-and-lethal-general-purpose-frigates

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Article 9 says absolutely nothing about defense exports. Perhaps you haven't read it.

You miss the point, like so many others. Japan refrained from selling weapons for decades, BECAUSE no matter how one chooses view it, those weapons also have offensive capabilities thus being seen as against Article 9.

That is how it was interpreted for decades, until Abe decided that the economy could use a boost by selling weapons of war, and Japan started into the weapons exports game.

Again, it's a game of "interpretation" and "semantics" on how one views the items being sold, ALL of them COULD be used offensively as well as defensively, and that was the hypocrisy of Abe's idea to rewrite the constitution and remake Japan into a military and not a defense force

FYI, I have read Japan's constitution and am fully aware of what Article 9 states.

Article 9. 

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained."

No where does it state, Japan can't sell war, but for all the years following the war, until Abe 1, that is how everyone interpreted it to mean, including all the countries in the region that were victims of Japan during the war.

Selling war makes money, and that is what it's ALL about.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YubaruToday  08:08 am JST

No where does it state, Japan can't sell war, but for all the years following the war, until Abe 1, that is how everyone interpreted it to mean, including all the countries in the region that were victims of Japan during the war.

Which nations are you talking about?

Besides Republic of China (not People Republic of China) there were no independent nations within the East/South East Asian region other were European/American colonies.

Many indigenous people living under European/American subjugation were liberated through Japan's action declaring war.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Desert TortoiseToday  04:48 am JST

Mogami class doesn't carry strike length VLS cells able to accept the long canisters used for Tomahawk

No, Mogami class are equipped with Mk 41 VLS which is capable of accepting Tomahawks.

Japan also has the advanced Mogami class(Nex gen. FFM) which will start construction from this year. She will be larger than the Mogami class weighing in at 6,200 tonnes full load and 32 VLS cells.

The next gen. FFM is the one considered by the Australians not the present Mogami class.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@YubaruToday 08:08 am JST

Selling war makes money, and that is what it's ALL about.

True, but read objectively, Article 9 really doesn't block the selling of weapons. Any interpretation otherwise is to meet political needs (almost a religion) rather than legality or constitutionality. Japan just couldn't humor the peaceniks anymore, that's all.

@TriringToday  11:52 am JST

There are several subvariants of the Mark 41, and you need the longest one to fit the Tomahawk. Since the Mogami is built before they decided on having Tomahawks, choosing the Strike version would mean an un-necessary volume, weight and cost penalty. If by then they were already covertly considering the possibility in the future they'd load Tomahawks, one way to sneak the capability on in advance is by getting the Strike version, but otherwise it won't be.

Samit BasuToday  02:27 am JST

So if Australia buys off the shelf, then Mogami is a compelling option, but if customization is applied, not so much because of Japanese defense contractor's inflexibility.

I wonder when the Aussies will learn maybe their better interest is to not customize things and just take the entire package off the shelf. That way, they would at least have ships.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

True, but read objectively, Article 9 really doesn't block the selling of weapons. Any interpretation otherwise is to meet political needs (almost a religion) rather than legality or constitutionality. Japan just couldn't humor the peaceniks anymore, that's all.

Ahh, but that is one thing that Japan could look to with pride, and the nations in the region as well never had to fear a militarized Japan as well.

It's semantics, and read "subjectively" as nearly ever politician and Japanese citizen did for decades, it's against the constitution.

That is one reason why Abe and other "hawks" want to change Article 9 to allow Japan to have offensive capabilities too! So it would take all the semantics out of the discussion.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Which nations are you talking about?

Besides Republic of China (not People Republic of China) there were no independent nations within the East/South East Asian region other were European/American colonies.

Many indigenous people living under European/American subjugation were liberated through Japan's action declaring war.

Really now? Are you intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue?

Taiwan, Philippines, China, Korea, Singapore, all had reasons to fear and loathe Japan!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

obfuscate the issue?

No just shining light to the truth.

Looks as if the the light has shown someone's their true colors as well. LoL

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There are several subvariants of the Mark 41, and you need the longest one to fit the Tomahawk. Since the Mogami is built before they decided on having Tomahawks, choosing the Strike version would mean an un-necessary volume, weight and cost penalty. If by then they were already covertly considering the possibility in the future they'd load Tomahawks, one way to sneak the capability on in advance is by getting the Strike version, but otherwise it won't be.

Even if the strike version are not equipped to the Mogami class with small modifications, the Mogami class is built to incorporate the Mk.41 system so she can accept the strike version.

A modular system is built to accept the largest variant, or it will be disgnated as another class.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even if the strike version are not equipped to the Mogami class with small modifications, the Mogami class is built to incorporate the Mk.41 system so she can accept the strike version.

No. The strike length VLS system is about four decks tall. There is a flame bucket beneath the VLS canisters that is flooded with sea water during firing. The only way to do it would be to raise the entire VLS installation one deck above where it is now and that would raise the center of mass significantly and more it forward, making the ship unstable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder when the Aussies will learn maybe their better interest is to not customize things and just take the entire package off the shelf. That way, they would at least have ships.

The Aussies do not use the guns, radars and missiles the Brits mount on their Type 26s. They already have the three Hobarts with a US main gun, US Mk 41 VLS and Aegis. To adopt the British version means adding new logistics operations for the different British systems. Not cheap when you are talking about completely different missiles, radars and guns that use different ammunition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, Mogami class are equipped with Mk 41 VLS which is capable of accepting Tomahawks.

Be careful, there are three different lengths for the Mk-41 VLS. Tomahawks require the longest of the three. Tomahawk and SM-3 the longest and heaviest missiles fired from VLS but only the longest "strike length" version is able to carry Tomahawk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is what the strike length system looks like.

https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-41-VLS_DAT/Mk-41-VLS-034.jpg

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is a reference guide to the Mk-41 system.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_Vertical_Launching_System_Product%20Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The shortest of the three Mk-41 series was called the "Self Defense" model and was to be only able to carry ESSM or similar point defense missiles. Apparently that version was cancelled in 2004.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites